C++ Linked List Assignment Operator Problem












1















I am writing an Ordered Linked List class definition (OLList). I have written the assignment operator function, but when I try to test it by chaining assignment operations, the program gets caught in the while loop of the OLList::copy function. I know this because I tested using console prints.



//OLList.h
struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next;
};

class OLList {
public:
OLList& OLList::operator =(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
destroy();
copy(rhs);
}
return *this;
}

void OLList::destroy()
{
Node *current_node = this->headM;
Node *next_node;
while(current_node->next != nullptr)
{
next_node = current_node->next;
delete(current_node);
current_node = next_node;
}


return;
}

void OLList::copy(const OLList& source)
{
Node *new_node, *current_node;
Node *current_source_node = source.headM;
this->headM->item = source.headM->item;
current_node = this->headM;

while(current_source_node->next != nullptr)
{
new_node = new(Node);
current_node->next = new_node;
current_node = current_node->next;
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
current_node->item = current_source_node->item;
}

return;
}
}


Below is the code used to test the class. I have made sure that the print() function works fine so that's definitely not an issue.



//main.cpp
int main()
{
OLList the_list;
the_list.insert(1);
the_list.insert(2);

OLList second_list;
second_list.insert(3);
second_list.insert(4);

OLList third_list;
third_list.insert(5);
third_list.insert(6);

third_list = second_list = the_list;
third_list.print();
}


When it is compiled and run, the program never terminates as it is caught in the loop mentioned above.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    void OLList::copy(const OLList& source) -- Why didn't you write a true copy constructor instead of copy?

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 1:57


















1















I am writing an Ordered Linked List class definition (OLList). I have written the assignment operator function, but when I try to test it by chaining assignment operations, the program gets caught in the while loop of the OLList::copy function. I know this because I tested using console prints.



//OLList.h
struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next;
};

class OLList {
public:
OLList& OLList::operator =(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
destroy();
copy(rhs);
}
return *this;
}

void OLList::destroy()
{
Node *current_node = this->headM;
Node *next_node;
while(current_node->next != nullptr)
{
next_node = current_node->next;
delete(current_node);
current_node = next_node;
}


return;
}

void OLList::copy(const OLList& source)
{
Node *new_node, *current_node;
Node *current_source_node = source.headM;
this->headM->item = source.headM->item;
current_node = this->headM;

while(current_source_node->next != nullptr)
{
new_node = new(Node);
current_node->next = new_node;
current_node = current_node->next;
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
current_node->item = current_source_node->item;
}

return;
}
}


Below is the code used to test the class. I have made sure that the print() function works fine so that's definitely not an issue.



//main.cpp
int main()
{
OLList the_list;
the_list.insert(1);
the_list.insert(2);

OLList second_list;
second_list.insert(3);
second_list.insert(4);

OLList third_list;
third_list.insert(5);
third_list.insert(6);

third_list = second_list = the_list;
third_list.print();
}


When it is compiled and run, the program never terminates as it is caught in the loop mentioned above.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    void OLList::copy(const OLList& source) -- Why didn't you write a true copy constructor instead of copy?

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 1:57
















1












1








1








I am writing an Ordered Linked List class definition (OLList). I have written the assignment operator function, but when I try to test it by chaining assignment operations, the program gets caught in the while loop of the OLList::copy function. I know this because I tested using console prints.



//OLList.h
struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next;
};

class OLList {
public:
OLList& OLList::operator =(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
destroy();
copy(rhs);
}
return *this;
}

void OLList::destroy()
{
Node *current_node = this->headM;
Node *next_node;
while(current_node->next != nullptr)
{
next_node = current_node->next;
delete(current_node);
current_node = next_node;
}


return;
}

void OLList::copy(const OLList& source)
{
Node *new_node, *current_node;
Node *current_source_node = source.headM;
this->headM->item = source.headM->item;
current_node = this->headM;

while(current_source_node->next != nullptr)
{
new_node = new(Node);
current_node->next = new_node;
current_node = current_node->next;
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
current_node->item = current_source_node->item;
}

return;
}
}


Below is the code used to test the class. I have made sure that the print() function works fine so that's definitely not an issue.



//main.cpp
int main()
{
OLList the_list;
the_list.insert(1);
the_list.insert(2);

OLList second_list;
second_list.insert(3);
second_list.insert(4);

OLList third_list;
third_list.insert(5);
third_list.insert(6);

third_list = second_list = the_list;
third_list.print();
}


When it is compiled and run, the program never terminates as it is caught in the loop mentioned above.










share|improve this question
















I am writing an Ordered Linked List class definition (OLList). I have written the assignment operator function, but when I try to test it by chaining assignment operations, the program gets caught in the while loop of the OLList::copy function. I know this because I tested using console prints.



//OLList.h
struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next;
};

class OLList {
public:
OLList& OLList::operator =(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
destroy();
copy(rhs);
}
return *this;
}

void OLList::destroy()
{
Node *current_node = this->headM;
Node *next_node;
while(current_node->next != nullptr)
{
next_node = current_node->next;
delete(current_node);
current_node = next_node;
}


return;
}

void OLList::copy(const OLList& source)
{
Node *new_node, *current_node;
Node *current_source_node = source.headM;
this->headM->item = source.headM->item;
current_node = this->headM;

while(current_source_node->next != nullptr)
{
new_node = new(Node);
current_node->next = new_node;
current_node = current_node->next;
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
current_node->item = current_source_node->item;
}

return;
}
}


Below is the code used to test the class. I have made sure that the print() function works fine so that's definitely not an issue.



//main.cpp
int main()
{
OLList the_list;
the_list.insert(1);
the_list.insert(2);

OLList second_list;
second_list.insert(3);
second_list.insert(4);

OLList third_list;
third_list.insert(5);
third_list.insert(6);

third_list = second_list = the_list;
third_list.print();
}


When it is compiled and run, the program never terminates as it is caught in the loop mentioned above.







c++ class






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 20 '18 at 1:24







Jedediah

















asked Nov 20 '18 at 0:52









JedediahJedediah

335




335








  • 2





    void OLList::copy(const OLList& source) -- Why didn't you write a true copy constructor instead of copy?

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 1:57
















  • 2





    void OLList::copy(const OLList& source) -- Why didn't you write a true copy constructor instead of copy?

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 1:57










2




2





void OLList::copy(const OLList& source) -- Why didn't you write a true copy constructor instead of copy?

– PaulMcKenzie
Nov 20 '18 at 1:57







void OLList::copy(const OLList& source) -- Why didn't you write a true copy constructor instead of copy?

– PaulMcKenzie
Nov 20 '18 at 1:57














1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














Your destroy() method will fail if headM is nullptr. You should be using while(current_node != nullptr) instead of while(current_node->next != nullptr). But more importantly, it doesn't reset headM to nullptr after destroying the list. So after operator= calls destroy(), headM is no longer in a valid state for copy() to use.



Your copy() method is similarly not checking if either source or target headM are nullptr. But more importantly, it assumes the target list is empty beforehand, otherwise it leaks memory, if it does not crash outright (per above). And frankly, it simply is not coded correctly in general to copy one list to another.



So, your code is invoking undefined behavior, this anything could happen.



Like @PaulMcKenzie stated in comments, you really should be using a proper copy constructor instead (and a destructor - and since you are clearly using C++11 or later, a move constructor and move assignment operator, too - see the Rule of 5). Your assignment operator can then be implemented using your copy constructor (and likewise for move assignment).



Try something more like this:



struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next = nullptr;

Node(const ListItem &value) : item(value) {}
};

class OLList {
private:
Node *headM = nullptr;

public:
OLList() = default;

OLList(const OLList &src)
{
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
Node **current_node = &headM;

while (current_source_node)
{
*current_node = new Node(current_source_node->item);
current_node = &((*current_node)->next);
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
}

/* alternatively:
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
while (current_source_node) {
insert(current_source_node->item);
}
*/
}

OLList(OLList&& src)
{
src.swap(*this);
}

~OLList()
{
Node *next_node;

while (headM)
{
next_node = headM->next;
delete headM;
headM = next_node;
}
}

void clear() {
OLList().swap(*this);
}

OLList& operator=(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
OLList(rhs).swap(*this);
}
return *this;
}

OLList& OLList::operator=(OLList&& rhs)
{
OLList(std::move(rhs)).swap(*this);
return *this;
}

void swap(OLList &other) {
std::swap(headM, other.headM);
}

void insert(const ListItem &value) {
...
}

void print() const {
...
}
...
};





share|improve this answer


























  • Well, I assume that would work.. However I'm not doing this for practical purposes; I'm trying to learn it. I still want to know why my code doesn't work, yes I see those problems but they are simple fixes by just adding in an if statement to check for a nullptr Head, and also adding in a 'destroy();' call at the beginning of copy(). What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:44













  • Also, I did write a copy constructor that calls OLList::copy(). This copy() function is a private helper function used in multiple other functions.

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:47











  • @Jedediah -- Well there is a flaw in your assignment operator. You destroyed your data before knowing whether the allocation will work or not. Using the copy / swap idiom in the assignment operator alleviates this from happening.

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 5:18













  • @Jedediah "What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?" - well, for one thing, when your operator= calls destroy(), headM is left in an invalid state, and then copy() tries to use headM, causing undefined behavior.

    – Remy Lebeau
    Nov 20 '18 at 7:10













Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53384717%2fc-linked-list-assignment-operator-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














Your destroy() method will fail if headM is nullptr. You should be using while(current_node != nullptr) instead of while(current_node->next != nullptr). But more importantly, it doesn't reset headM to nullptr after destroying the list. So after operator= calls destroy(), headM is no longer in a valid state for copy() to use.



Your copy() method is similarly not checking if either source or target headM are nullptr. But more importantly, it assumes the target list is empty beforehand, otherwise it leaks memory, if it does not crash outright (per above). And frankly, it simply is not coded correctly in general to copy one list to another.



So, your code is invoking undefined behavior, this anything could happen.



Like @PaulMcKenzie stated in comments, you really should be using a proper copy constructor instead (and a destructor - and since you are clearly using C++11 or later, a move constructor and move assignment operator, too - see the Rule of 5). Your assignment operator can then be implemented using your copy constructor (and likewise for move assignment).



Try something more like this:



struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next = nullptr;

Node(const ListItem &value) : item(value) {}
};

class OLList {
private:
Node *headM = nullptr;

public:
OLList() = default;

OLList(const OLList &src)
{
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
Node **current_node = &headM;

while (current_source_node)
{
*current_node = new Node(current_source_node->item);
current_node = &((*current_node)->next);
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
}

/* alternatively:
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
while (current_source_node) {
insert(current_source_node->item);
}
*/
}

OLList(OLList&& src)
{
src.swap(*this);
}

~OLList()
{
Node *next_node;

while (headM)
{
next_node = headM->next;
delete headM;
headM = next_node;
}
}

void clear() {
OLList().swap(*this);
}

OLList& operator=(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
OLList(rhs).swap(*this);
}
return *this;
}

OLList& OLList::operator=(OLList&& rhs)
{
OLList(std::move(rhs)).swap(*this);
return *this;
}

void swap(OLList &other) {
std::swap(headM, other.headM);
}

void insert(const ListItem &value) {
...
}

void print() const {
...
}
...
};





share|improve this answer


























  • Well, I assume that would work.. However I'm not doing this for practical purposes; I'm trying to learn it. I still want to know why my code doesn't work, yes I see those problems but they are simple fixes by just adding in an if statement to check for a nullptr Head, and also adding in a 'destroy();' call at the beginning of copy(). What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:44













  • Also, I did write a copy constructor that calls OLList::copy(). This copy() function is a private helper function used in multiple other functions.

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:47











  • @Jedediah -- Well there is a flaw in your assignment operator. You destroyed your data before knowing whether the allocation will work or not. Using the copy / swap idiom in the assignment operator alleviates this from happening.

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 5:18













  • @Jedediah "What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?" - well, for one thing, when your operator= calls destroy(), headM is left in an invalid state, and then copy() tries to use headM, causing undefined behavior.

    – Remy Lebeau
    Nov 20 '18 at 7:10


















1














Your destroy() method will fail if headM is nullptr. You should be using while(current_node != nullptr) instead of while(current_node->next != nullptr). But more importantly, it doesn't reset headM to nullptr after destroying the list. So after operator= calls destroy(), headM is no longer in a valid state for copy() to use.



Your copy() method is similarly not checking if either source or target headM are nullptr. But more importantly, it assumes the target list is empty beforehand, otherwise it leaks memory, if it does not crash outright (per above). And frankly, it simply is not coded correctly in general to copy one list to another.



So, your code is invoking undefined behavior, this anything could happen.



Like @PaulMcKenzie stated in comments, you really should be using a proper copy constructor instead (and a destructor - and since you are clearly using C++11 or later, a move constructor and move assignment operator, too - see the Rule of 5). Your assignment operator can then be implemented using your copy constructor (and likewise for move assignment).



Try something more like this:



struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next = nullptr;

Node(const ListItem &value) : item(value) {}
};

class OLList {
private:
Node *headM = nullptr;

public:
OLList() = default;

OLList(const OLList &src)
{
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
Node **current_node = &headM;

while (current_source_node)
{
*current_node = new Node(current_source_node->item);
current_node = &((*current_node)->next);
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
}

/* alternatively:
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
while (current_source_node) {
insert(current_source_node->item);
}
*/
}

OLList(OLList&& src)
{
src.swap(*this);
}

~OLList()
{
Node *next_node;

while (headM)
{
next_node = headM->next;
delete headM;
headM = next_node;
}
}

void clear() {
OLList().swap(*this);
}

OLList& operator=(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
OLList(rhs).swap(*this);
}
return *this;
}

OLList& OLList::operator=(OLList&& rhs)
{
OLList(std::move(rhs)).swap(*this);
return *this;
}

void swap(OLList &other) {
std::swap(headM, other.headM);
}

void insert(const ListItem &value) {
...
}

void print() const {
...
}
...
};





share|improve this answer


























  • Well, I assume that would work.. However I'm not doing this for practical purposes; I'm trying to learn it. I still want to know why my code doesn't work, yes I see those problems but they are simple fixes by just adding in an if statement to check for a nullptr Head, and also adding in a 'destroy();' call at the beginning of copy(). What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:44













  • Also, I did write a copy constructor that calls OLList::copy(). This copy() function is a private helper function used in multiple other functions.

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:47











  • @Jedediah -- Well there is a flaw in your assignment operator. You destroyed your data before knowing whether the allocation will work or not. Using the copy / swap idiom in the assignment operator alleviates this from happening.

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 5:18













  • @Jedediah "What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?" - well, for one thing, when your operator= calls destroy(), headM is left in an invalid state, and then copy() tries to use headM, causing undefined behavior.

    – Remy Lebeau
    Nov 20 '18 at 7:10
















1












1








1







Your destroy() method will fail if headM is nullptr. You should be using while(current_node != nullptr) instead of while(current_node->next != nullptr). But more importantly, it doesn't reset headM to nullptr after destroying the list. So after operator= calls destroy(), headM is no longer in a valid state for copy() to use.



Your copy() method is similarly not checking if either source or target headM are nullptr. But more importantly, it assumes the target list is empty beforehand, otherwise it leaks memory, if it does not crash outright (per above). And frankly, it simply is not coded correctly in general to copy one list to another.



So, your code is invoking undefined behavior, this anything could happen.



Like @PaulMcKenzie stated in comments, you really should be using a proper copy constructor instead (and a destructor - and since you are clearly using C++11 or later, a move constructor and move assignment operator, too - see the Rule of 5). Your assignment operator can then be implemented using your copy constructor (and likewise for move assignment).



Try something more like this:



struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next = nullptr;

Node(const ListItem &value) : item(value) {}
};

class OLList {
private:
Node *headM = nullptr;

public:
OLList() = default;

OLList(const OLList &src)
{
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
Node **current_node = &headM;

while (current_source_node)
{
*current_node = new Node(current_source_node->item);
current_node = &((*current_node)->next);
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
}

/* alternatively:
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
while (current_source_node) {
insert(current_source_node->item);
}
*/
}

OLList(OLList&& src)
{
src.swap(*this);
}

~OLList()
{
Node *next_node;

while (headM)
{
next_node = headM->next;
delete headM;
headM = next_node;
}
}

void clear() {
OLList().swap(*this);
}

OLList& operator=(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
OLList(rhs).swap(*this);
}
return *this;
}

OLList& OLList::operator=(OLList&& rhs)
{
OLList(std::move(rhs)).swap(*this);
return *this;
}

void swap(OLList &other) {
std::swap(headM, other.headM);
}

void insert(const ListItem &value) {
...
}

void print() const {
...
}
...
};





share|improve this answer















Your destroy() method will fail if headM is nullptr. You should be using while(current_node != nullptr) instead of while(current_node->next != nullptr). But more importantly, it doesn't reset headM to nullptr after destroying the list. So after operator= calls destroy(), headM is no longer in a valid state for copy() to use.



Your copy() method is similarly not checking if either source or target headM are nullptr. But more importantly, it assumes the target list is empty beforehand, otherwise it leaks memory, if it does not crash outright (per above). And frankly, it simply is not coded correctly in general to copy one list to another.



So, your code is invoking undefined behavior, this anything could happen.



Like @PaulMcKenzie stated in comments, you really should be using a proper copy constructor instead (and a destructor - and since you are clearly using C++11 or later, a move constructor and move assignment operator, too - see the Rule of 5). Your assignment operator can then be implemented using your copy constructor (and likewise for move assignment).



Try something more like this:



struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next = nullptr;

Node(const ListItem &value) : item(value) {}
};

class OLList {
private:
Node *headM = nullptr;

public:
OLList() = default;

OLList(const OLList &src)
{
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
Node **current_node = &headM;

while (current_source_node)
{
*current_node = new Node(current_source_node->item);
current_node = &((*current_node)->next);
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
}

/* alternatively:
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
while (current_source_node) {
insert(current_source_node->item);
}
*/
}

OLList(OLList&& src)
{
src.swap(*this);
}

~OLList()
{
Node *next_node;

while (headM)
{
next_node = headM->next;
delete headM;
headM = next_node;
}
}

void clear() {
OLList().swap(*this);
}

OLList& operator=(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
OLList(rhs).swap(*this);
}
return *this;
}

OLList& OLList::operator=(OLList&& rhs)
{
OLList(std::move(rhs)).swap(*this);
return *this;
}

void swap(OLList &other) {
std::swap(headM, other.headM);
}

void insert(const ListItem &value) {
...
}

void print() const {
...
}
...
};






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 20 '18 at 7:12

























answered Nov 20 '18 at 2:15









Remy LebeauRemy Lebeau

332k18251444




332k18251444













  • Well, I assume that would work.. However I'm not doing this for practical purposes; I'm trying to learn it. I still want to know why my code doesn't work, yes I see those problems but they are simple fixes by just adding in an if statement to check for a nullptr Head, and also adding in a 'destroy();' call at the beginning of copy(). What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:44













  • Also, I did write a copy constructor that calls OLList::copy(). This copy() function is a private helper function used in multiple other functions.

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:47











  • @Jedediah -- Well there is a flaw in your assignment operator. You destroyed your data before knowing whether the allocation will work or not. Using the copy / swap idiom in the assignment operator alleviates this from happening.

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 5:18













  • @Jedediah "What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?" - well, for one thing, when your operator= calls destroy(), headM is left in an invalid state, and then copy() tries to use headM, causing undefined behavior.

    – Remy Lebeau
    Nov 20 '18 at 7:10





















  • Well, I assume that would work.. However I'm not doing this for practical purposes; I'm trying to learn it. I still want to know why my code doesn't work, yes I see those problems but they are simple fixes by just adding in an if statement to check for a nullptr Head, and also adding in a 'destroy();' call at the beginning of copy(). What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:44













  • Also, I did write a copy constructor that calls OLList::copy(). This copy() function is a private helper function used in multiple other functions.

    – Jedediah
    Nov 20 '18 at 4:47











  • @Jedediah -- Well there is a flaw in your assignment operator. You destroyed your data before knowing whether the allocation will work or not. Using the copy / swap idiom in the assignment operator alleviates this from happening.

    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 20 '18 at 5:18













  • @Jedediah "What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?" - well, for one thing, when your operator= calls destroy(), headM is left in an invalid state, and then copy() tries to use headM, causing undefined behavior.

    – Remy Lebeau
    Nov 20 '18 at 7:10



















Well, I assume that would work.. However I'm not doing this for practical purposes; I'm trying to learn it. I still want to know why my code doesn't work, yes I see those problems but they are simple fixes by just adding in an if statement to check for a nullptr Head, and also adding in a 'destroy();' call at the beginning of copy(). What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?

– Jedediah
Nov 20 '18 at 4:44







Well, I assume that would work.. However I'm not doing this for practical purposes; I'm trying to learn it. I still want to know why my code doesn't work, yes I see those problems but they are simple fixes by just adding in an if statement to check for a nullptr Head, and also adding in a 'destroy();' call at the beginning of copy(). What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?

– Jedediah
Nov 20 '18 at 4:44















Also, I did write a copy constructor that calls OLList::copy(). This copy() function is a private helper function used in multiple other functions.

– Jedediah
Nov 20 '18 at 4:47





Also, I did write a copy constructor that calls OLList::copy(). This copy() function is a private helper function used in multiple other functions.

– Jedediah
Nov 20 '18 at 4:47













@Jedediah -- Well there is a flaw in your assignment operator. You destroyed your data before knowing whether the allocation will work or not. Using the copy / swap idiom in the assignment operator alleviates this from happening.

– PaulMcKenzie
Nov 20 '18 at 5:18







@Jedediah -- Well there is a flaw in your assignment operator. You destroyed your data before knowing whether the allocation will work or not. Using the copy / swap idiom in the assignment operator alleviates this from happening.

– PaulMcKenzie
Nov 20 '18 at 5:18















@Jedediah "What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?" - well, for one thing, when your operator= calls destroy(), headM is left in an invalid state, and then copy() tries to use headM, causing undefined behavior.

– Remy Lebeau
Nov 20 '18 at 7:10







@Jedediah "What is incorrect about the rest of the process assuming those fixes are made, assuming I still want to stay with this method?" - well, for one thing, when your operator= calls destroy(), headM is left in an invalid state, and then copy() tries to use headM, causing undefined behavior.

– Remy Lebeau
Nov 20 '18 at 7:10




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53384717%2fc-linked-list-assignment-operator-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

'app-layout' is not a known element: how to share Component with different Modules

android studio warns about leanback feature tag usage required on manifest while using Unity exported app?

WPF add header to Image with URL pettitions [duplicate]